| Forum Home | | Log in | | Signup | | My Page  | |
Rules | | FAQ | | Boards | | Members | | Search |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The above list shows replies to the following message: |
|
Msg. 12242 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 12241 by loosechange) |
|
hi lc, i see what you are saying. it's probably worth an experiment somewhere. but rather not near me. i accept that getting from a to b is an issue. i also think the us just isn't capable of amending its rules in a way that changes significantly the existence of guns in scoiety. so it will continue to run death by gun numbers like south africa and unlike most other western countries. the foundation of the problem is people having easy access to these dangerous tools. the second amendment offers protection for a bad idea. it makes right to gun ownership essentially a rebuttable presumption. that presumption should be inverted, especially in a culture that celebrates violence. tom cruise has deferred the release of his violent movie. the movie is one of many that sells itself through a narrative about a person who takes the law into his own hands and kills lots of people. hollywood defers the release because the timing is bad. this is the problem. the problem isn't the timing. it's the movie. it's the movies of this type. they are the petri dish in which the justification of violence grows. the video games industry is also shockingly violent and actually goes further. it encourages people to participate. for a person with mental health problems, who has difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy, violence in real life is the natural result of violence in fantasy. but really, the same thing goes for people who feel inadequate. they get to know a sense of empowerment. they like the feeling. next think you know. quit making money celebrating violence. for god's sake, just stop. there's the sickness. back to gun ownership. i just don't think we can make a case for better overall outcomes where guns are more likely to be present in situations. humans behave differently when they have a gun. they use them when they should not. on average. in your scenario, maybe you get lucky in one or two cases of a mass shooting. but on average, people do more terminally dumb things when they have guns than when they do not. bringing them out of the home and into the pocket gives more opportunity for dumb behaviour. people assert power when they think they have it. soon people are dead. and if the police believe you may be armed because a concealed weapon law permits it, they will also have to presume a gun is present whenever an arrest is being made - and in my view, that will have many bad outcomes. the presence of large numbers of guns is a major factor in the problem. containing the problem to narrowly defined spaces rather than moving it out into society seems to me to be the way to go. i think the best solutions all involve less access, harsher penalties etc. what worked in the uk was a gun amnesty/buyback for those handing in weapons, together with extreme restriction and harsh laws for those holding onto their gums illegally. something similar worked fairly well in australia re assault weapons, shotguns etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/ i was not talking about the legality of the trayvon martin case. i've tended to think it was a case of fear and misunderstanding rather than deliberate criminal behaviour. the racism thing was invented by folks in the edit suite. if everyone in those circumstances knew there was no gun present, it would have turned our differently. zimmerman would have observed and reported rather than pursued and confronted the kid. instead, someone is dead. sadly, i think the us is not going to solve this problem in the short run. unless folks generally agree that guns and humans don't mix well, the mix will exist and it will generate catastrophe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Webpage Design Copyright 2003-2011 http://www.atomicbobs.com/
|